3:15-cv-03012
D.S.D.Jun 29, 2015Background
- Petitioner Ted A. Klaudt, a state prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 26, 2015 challenging his 2008 state-court rape convictions.
- Klaudt previously filed a § 2254 petition in CIV. 10-4091, which Judge Schreier dismissed on the merits with a denial of a certificate of appealability; the Eighth Circuit also denied COA.
- Klaudt filed a second federal habeas petition in CIV. 13-1018; Judge Schreier dismissed it as successive and denied COA; the Eighth Circuit likewise denied COA.
- 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) bars second or successive § 2254 applications absent authorization from the court of appeals, or narrow exceptions (new retroactive rule or newly discoverable facts meeting a high actual-innocence standard).
- Klaudt made no showing that the Eighth Circuit authorized this third filing under § 2244(b)(3)(A). The magistrate recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the petition is successive.
- The magistrate also recommended denying a certificate of appealability, finding Klaudt failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or raise debatable issues among jurists of reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can consider Klaudt's third § 2254 petition despite prior federal habeas filings | Klaudt seeks review of his 2008 convictions (claims not detailed in R&R) and desires federal habeas review | Respondents argue petition is successive and Klaudt lacks Eighth Circuit authorization required by § 2244(b)(3)(A) | Petition is successive; court lacks jurisdiction to consider it without prior authorization — dismiss recommended |
| Whether Klaudt met the exceptions in § 2244(b)(2) to allow a successive petition | Klaudt did not demonstrate entitlement to exceptions (no new retroactive rule or newly discovered facts shown) | Respondents assert no new-rule or newly discovered factual predicate meeting § 2244(b)(2) requirements | Exceptions not shown; successive dismissal appropriate |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue | Klaudt implicitly seeks COA to proceed on appeal | Respondents oppose COA; argue issues are not debatable among reasonable jurists | COA denied — Klaudt failed to make a substantial showing of constitutional denial |
| Jurisdictional effect of failing to obtain circuit authorization | Klaudt proceeded without showing Eighth Circuit permission | Respondents contend lack of permission renders district court without jurisdiction | District court lacks jurisdiction to entertain successive habeas; dismissal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Hopkins, 130 F.3d 333 (8th Cir.) (failure to obtain appellate authorization bars district court consideration of successive habeas)
- Garrett v. Groose, 99 F.3d 283 (8th Cir.) (same principle regarding successive petitions and jurisdiction)
- Randolph v. Kemna, 276 F.3d 401 (8th Cir.) (standard for certificate of appealability and what constitutes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right)